User talk:Mastiff111

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] January 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to 23 March, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Gwernol 22:35, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reagan edits

When your edits are reverted,its usually considered an exceptionally smart move to start talking about what issues people had with them instead of just putting them back in the article. Definition of insanity: doing the same thing and expecting a different result. Discuss/defend your edits, or expect to be reverted more often. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 03:11, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I've been reverting some of your additions to the Reagan article because you are replacing referenced text with unreferenced text. As Arcayne said, major edits like yours should first be discussed on the article's talk page, and they need to be properly referenced (See WP:CITE). I would also strongly suggest using an edit summary, especially when making major edits. Thanks. AlexiusHoratius (talk) 00:43, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps you should take the exact same sorts of comments from two unrelated editors as an inkling that it might be you that needs to re-address the way they edit. You need to cite. You need to discuss your edits. If you don't, you are going to find yourself really frustrated, as you will get cited. A lot. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 02:00, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
You are working my last nerve, sport. This edit is unacceptable. You've been cautioned to discuss your reverts before, but now you are removing entire sections. I consider it to be vandalism, so this is your warning. Keep it up, and you will be blocked. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 17:56, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I finally stumbled onto your writings and I actually can't beleive what a jackas you are. First, you should e-mail me these things not post them obscurely on a page I have to scour to find. Honestly I couldn't find your comments until today. I figured you were a "liberal" by the way you defame Reagan. I will do all citing and edit a historical event (1980 election) with just more than 10 or so lines. Those NY Times articles are like citing lies. OK, sport? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mastiff111 (talk • contribs)

With regard to your comments on User talk:Mastiff111: Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Gwernol 13:19, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your message on my talk page. Yes, of course I read all the comments here. Arcayne's comments are not personal attacks - he rightly warned you for your edits to Ronald Reagan which clearly breach our policy on adding personal opinions to articles. However, you calling him a "jackass" is a clear personal attack - as our policy on personal attacks clearly states: "comment on content, not on the contributor". Thanks, Gwernol 18:54, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Show me where Arcayne comments about you as a person: he only talks about your edits. You on the other hand seem to be happy to attack people left and right. Comments like "you need to get a giant clue" clearly breach our policy on personal attacks. Please take the time to read the policy in detail, you seem to be missing its point. Continuing to attack me is not a realy sound way to convince me that you understand our policy. Gwernol 21:47, 9 February 2008 (UTC)